Cutera, Inc. v. The Ozoned Studio Med Spa, LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-04054
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cutera v. Ozoned, Judge Chhabria denied Ozoned’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Cutera’s fee request.
Cutera, Inc., The Ozoned Studio Med Spa, LLC, and the other defendants named in the case are affected. The order preserves the case against Ozoned in the Northern District of California and denies Cutera’s request for attorney’s fees on the motion.
What happened
In Cutera, Inc. v. The Ozoned Studio Med Spa, LLC, Ozoned asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The contract included a provision requiring disputes related to the agreement to be heard in specified California courts.
The court ruled that a valid forum-selection provision is consent to personal jurisdiction. It rejected Ozoned’s arguments that the contract had an additional condition or was invalid because of how it was presented and signed.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion to dismiss. He also denied Cutera’s request for attorney’s fees, ruling that the contract provision covered fees in an action related to the contract, not fees for winning a motion within that action.
The detailed version
- Cutera, Inc. v. The Ozoned Studio Med Spa, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-04054
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Cutera, Inc. sued The Ozoned Studio Med Spa, LLC and others. Ozoned moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cutera also requested attorney’s fees under a provision in the parties’ contract. The opinion states that Behlar signed the contract on Ozoned’s behalf and that the contract was valued at $171,000.
Personal Jurisdiction
The court denied Ozoned’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It explained that federal law governs enforcement of forum-selection clauses in diversity cases and that a valid forum-selection clause constitutes consent to personal jurisdiction.
The contract required actions relating to the agreement to be heard exclusively in San Mateo County Superior Court, California, or the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Ozoned did not dispute that Behlar signed the contract on its behalf and did not make arguments specifically challenging the forum-selection clause.
Ozoned instead argued that the contract included an additional term conditioning the deal on an unrelated real-estate transaction. The court held that this dispute concerned the terms of the contract and therefore was an action relating to the agreement covered by the forum-selection clause. The court said the dispute did not affect the clause’s validity.
Ozoned also argued that the entire contract was invalid because Behlar did not read it before signing, the type was small, the offer seemed to be “take it or leave it,” it was signed at a restaurant over drinks, and Cutera took several days to provide Ozoned with a copy. The court rejected these arguments, stating that none came close to invalidating the contract.
Attorney’s Fees
The court denied Cutera’s request for attorney’s fees. It interpreted the contract provision as allowing fees for the party that prevailed in an action relating to the contract, not whenever a party prevailed on a motion within that action.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to dismiss and denied Cutera’s request for attorney’s fees. The order did not state that either ruling was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.